BMJ b/s painting PWME as threatening psych patients

[Desdinova]

He gave up active research years ago. Yet he's still pontificating and espousing his same old campaign of lies, twisted half truths, double speak, innuendo and general obfuscation. He's the victim and we're the villains for fighting back against lies and persecution. You know if it wasn't so sad it would be almost funny.

 

[Enid]

Jace (your post 19) - it is indeed great to see Ollie Cornes letter published in the BMJ - this with an Editorial from Fiona Godlee and a Feature from Trish Groves deputy editor on the same date. Their positions regarding ME remain unclear. Indeed reports from the 6th Annual Iime Conference on other sites report a very difference experience from that of Ms Groves for instance - much learned, previously unaware, impressed by the science and able to understand more etc (all Docs) so hope for us all there.

 

[Katyak]

I agree the inclusion of Ollie Cornes is good, and makes me wonder what the real motivations of all this media outpouring is in the UK.



On Wikepedia, the entry for SW has this:

In an interview published by The Lancet [in 2007], Wessely admits to both regretting and enjoying the controversy relating to his work on Gulf War syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome. With hindsight he states that he was keen to get published, could have been more diplomatic, and is now better at handling controversy

Ref given as: Watts G (May 2007). "Simon Wessely.". Lancet 369 (9575): 1783. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60802-2. PMID 17531873.

Ah, so he's now being more diplomatic these days and regrets/enjoys the CFS controversy, eh. I could have sworn in the BMJ yesterday he is casting himself in the 'I'm a victim of all these horrible people' role.

There you go. Another bit of SW changing the goalposts when it suits him. Is anyone has access to that article to check its refs, it might be useful for a quote in a rapid response to the BMJ???

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

[Content deleted by Suzy Chapman who has now left the forum.]

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

[Content deleted by Suzy Chapman who has now left the forum.]

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

[Content deleted by Suzy Chapman who has now left the forum.]

 

[Enid]

Thanks for all that Suzy - I will read slowly and do anything poss here. The apparent "stalemate" is of their own making and arrogant stance taken by some particular over influentials within the medical profession - the psychiatrists. Their (and friends) posturing now reads like miffed children and they have created the uncomfortable situation for anyone researching the organic bases of this disease in the UK. I've 4 Docs (various specialities) in my own family who know better who watch and wait patiently as ME (overseas) is now being unravelled. And I can quite understand a little swearing (alleged behaviour of ME patients) suffering years of misinformation and mistreatment by the psycho clique.

 

[toddm1960]

Rest assured he will pay a price one day, there's a special place in hell for mr. simon wessely

 

[SilverbladeTE]

"The lady doth protest to much..."
They are trying to rally, and hit back in a "United front" against the advancing tide of feaces which is going to bury them, feaces of their own making.

The UK's Psychs concluded that PTSD was 7 times greater in US than UK troops...that PTSD was rare in our military
Well, that's not the experience of the those in uniform, and some recent revelations, and the vast disparity with the US troops cannot be explained away with the "usual culprits" as much as they try.

Mobile phones were claimed to be "safe" by the UKs "officialdom" and especially psychiatric community, and those complaining about them were of course "psychosomatic"...
The reality is far different, finally we are begining to be let see that yes, they, like anything over-used, or over-sold by our greedy, uncaring, profit-insane systems, can harm you.

Camelford, "psychosomatic" again, yet folk have died, the events after accident has been exposed as a cover up, and while there's no evidence to suggest medics were involved in the deception...there was originally no evidence, only suspicion a cover had occured at all, until recently: suspicions largely held by us "mental defective types".

Sometimes, a monster cannot see that it is a monster, because it cannot see it's own reflection, or grasp the essential lack of a vital part of the positive parts of Humanity for he/she/it lacks that essential element and can therefor never quite grasp its loss.
But worst of all, is the monster who thinks that because it does a Greater Good, anything, ANYTHING it does, weal or woe, doesn't matter in the face of carrying out its "Greater Purpose"
Those kind of problematic people have caused immense harm, especially the latter.
There are many cases of doctors and scientists and others, as well as of course, political and religious leaders being the most infamous and damaging, doing incredibly evil and stupid things in the name of "the Greater Good".
"Munchausen's Syndrome By Pillocks"
Do the Ends justify the Means? No, they damn well do not, because the End itself becomes lost in the Lie, the Lie is merely self-justification for something the wrong-doer wanted to do anyway.
That is one of the "Great Truths" of life: people do things because they want to. "Judge them by the fruit of their tree"

The "professional classes" always make damn sure of covering up their foul deeds and thus it's harder too discover them and they are thus, ENORMOUS in scope.
Nearly all "Organizations" of any type, political, trade, religion etc, put "respectability, the honour, good name of the organization" over any other consideration. See the Catholic Church and child sexual abuse, or police covering up murders and crimes by colleagues.
This kind of "covering up of horrors" has also been practiced by the medical profession, from mass murder to drug addiction, and across the Western World, check the history books.

Women have been repeatedly the victims of such, as have minorities in a society, from race to mere eccentricity
And the abuser often decries the victim for protesting at the abuse!

History will adjudicate on this, we'll be dead, dead of an illness which is "all in our minds", but history is very unkind to duplicitious spalpeens

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

[Content deleted by Suzy Chapman who has now left the forum.]

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Spalpeen, archaic word rarely heard nowdayas alas, from Irish/Scots, a "rascal, rogue, good-for-nothing"
sometimes used in a friendly way as "rascal" and "rogue" are.
Sometimes just means a "sneaky ratbag"

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

[Content deleted by Suzy Chapman who has now left the forum.]

 

[Dolphin]

BMJ letters need to be in within 5 days following publication (in the print issue)

Following the 4 pieces in the BMJ this week, some people may be considering submitting an e-letter/rapid response with the hope that it might be published in the print edition. One does not need to have a subscription to the journal to post a rapid response or indeed have a letter published.

Thus, I thought it was worthwhile to point out the following which I received following submitting a rapid response:

------

All responses posted are considered for publication as letters in the print journal. Each week we select from the responses posted during the first five days after the appearance of a new issue. Thus we aim for a delay of only two weeks between publication of an article and its correspondence.

------

In the past, I believe they had guidance that letters should be under 250 words and have 5 or fewer references. I cannot see mention of either from a quick look around the site, although all the letters this week have 5 or fewer references.

I'm appending the word count.

Unlike some journals (who appear not to mind much), I think the BMJ actually prefers letters that do not go right up to the word limit.

I think for people with ME/CFS or people associated with patient organisations, under 200 words may be preferable. Then again, mine at 208 words wasn't under that!

I'm appending a list of the word counts from this week's letters, for what it is worth.

------

Letters published in the print edition of the BMJ this week:

40 words (sic) 5 refs
138 words 2 refs
248 words 1 ref.
133 words 2 refs
135 words 2 refs
125 words 5 refs
346 words 1 refs
152 words 4 refs
277 words 3 refs
257 words 4 refs
295 words 4 refs.
Plus long letter (with different shading) from the World Health Organisation

 

[Tulip]

It is amazing that he has taken the victim stance and is yet again denying having sectioned Ean Proctor and having had him thrown into a swimming pool. The offical document is on the internet worth HIS signature!!!!!. You can't rewrite history no matter how much you want to and lying by omission is truely a sign that things are not all ok in Wessely land.

 

[Snow Leopard]

One of the frustrating things for me about our illness is that we are huge in numbers.

We are not huge in numbers - very few of us present in online forums, it's just that those who do are self selected for being (a) vocal and (b) above average in intelligence.

 

[In Vitro Infidelium]

It is amazing that he has taken the victim stance and is yet again denying having sectioned Ean Proctor and having had him thrown into a swimming pool. The offical document is on the internet worth HIS signature!!!!!. You can't rewrite history no matter how much you want to and lying by omission is truely a sign that things are not all ok in Wessely land.

Wessely was never directly involved Ean Proctor's treatment - although Wessley's unsolicited contact with the Isle of Man authorities undoubtedly precipitated the avalanche of abuse the Ean suffered. Complaining about others rewriting history while at the same time misprepresting the facts oneself isn't the best way to persuade people to look critically at the object of one's complaint - Wessely may be harmful but we must take great care to identify the harm, and not confuse it with misinformation.

IVI

 

[Esther12]

Wessely may be harmful but we must take great care to identify the harm, and not confuse it with misinformation.

This is really important.

Any false claims about Wessely, etc can really undermine our legitimate complaints.

Wessely often writes in a slightly ambiguous way, that means it's easy to honestly and accidentally misrepresent his words (or present them in the worst light). I expect that I may have done so in the past - but it's something we all need to be careful of.

 

[Tulip]

Wessely was never directly involved Ean Proctor's treatment - although Wessley's unsolicited contact with the Isle of Man authorities undoubtedly precipitated the avalanche of abuse the Ean suffered. Complaining about others rewriting history while at the same time misprepresting the facts oneself isn't the best way to persuade people to look critically at the object of one's complaint - Wessely may be harmful but we must take great care to identify the harm, and not confuse it with misinformation.

IVI

I have seen his signature on it. I never said "he" threw him into the swimming pool, if you re-read what I said, you will see I did not say that. His influence was there all the way in Eans treatment though and I doubt very much that all of that would have happened to him if Wessely hadn't been "in the background". Ean was sent to see him and it was from there that he was sectioned. There is a video on youtube with Eans mother saying all of this and Ean is in the video as well, so it's not false information.

This has more info as well : http://www.ahummingbirdsguide.com/wmarwilltstrsaep.htm

In a letter dated 3rd June 1988 to the Principal Social Worker on the Isle of Man (Mrs Jean Manson), Wessely wrote: “Ean presented with a history of an ability (sic) to use any muscle group which amounted to a paraplegia, together with elective mutatism (sic). I did not perform a physical examination but was told that there was no evidence of any physical pathology…I was in no doubt that the primary problem was psychiatric (and) that his apparent illness was out of all proportion to the original cause. I feel that Ean’s parents are very over involved in his care. I have considerable experience in the subject of ‘myalgic encephalomyelitis’ and am absolutely certain that it did not apply to Ean. I feel that Ean needs a long period of rehabilitation (which) will involve separation from his parent. For this reason, I support the application made by your department for wardship”.

On 10 June 1988 Wessely provided another report on Ean Proctor for Messrs Simcocks & Co, Solicitors for the Child Care Department on the Isle of Man. Although Wessely had never once interviewed or examined the child, he wrote “I did not order any investigations….Ean cannot be suffering from any primary organic illness, be it myalgic encephalomyelitis or any other. Ean has a primary psychological illness causing him to become mute and immobile. Ean requires skilled rehabilitation to regain lost function. I therefore support the efforts being made to ensure Ean receives appropriate treatment”. Under his signature, Wessely wrote “Approved under Section 12, Mental Health Act 1983”.

I think people have the right to be angry, but I don't agree with the lunatic death threat approach at all.

 

[Enid]

Perhaps another thing to watch is the timing of his "pearls of wisdom" - he does seem to have shifted his position subtley over the years in his career and I notice is quick to say "ah but I said that" more recently. An adept at denial as science proves him wrong.

 

[Esther12]

An adept at denial as science proves him wrong.

One of the things I really hate about him is that he seems to think that a willingness to abandon his beliefs once they have been proven wrong absolves him of moral responsibility for the harm he has done.

The sorts of prejudices promoted under the guise of scientific racism were not acceptable long before they had been proven wrong, for moral and social reasons and because of the weakness of the evidence that was used in support of them. Wessely seems to think that any concern about the harm done by his bold promotion of psychosocial hypotheses must be driven by unreasonable views of mental health issues, or a misunderstanding of science as a process. It's like claiming that those who were opposed to the claim that black people were more closely related to monkeys than white must not understand evolutionary theory ("They could have out-evolved us since -it doesn't need to mean it's worse to be black! Those lynchings are very sad, and have nothing to do with my work").